Allowed

Sri K K Chandrakanth v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/9051/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A job aspirant challenged the Tribunal's rejection of his application against the Final Select List for Assistant Professor posts; the fourth selected candidate under the intellectual disability quota withdrew. The Court held refusal of relief on pleading technicality was erroneous and directed preparation of an Additional Select List.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus to respondent No.2 (KEA) to prepare Additional Select List within six weeks; respondents 1 and 3 to consider top candidate for the vacancy; compliance report to Registrar General.

Sri K K Chandrakanth Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 9051 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K K CHANDRAKANTH, S/O LATE KEMPACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, 3^RD JMFC COUR,T MALALAVADI, JAYANAGARA, MYSURU 570 014. RESIDING AT NO.329 LIG (2), BEHIND CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, SHARADADEVINAGAR, MYSURU 570 023.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHREEDHAR G BIDRE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, ROOM NO.645 A, 6^TH FLOOR, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY, 18^TH CROSS ROAD, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 560 012.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶19

SRI MANTRI PRAGAD MELKISEDAKA S/O MANTRI GAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.1, NEAR FIRE STATION, JAYANAGARA EXTENSION, KRISHNARAJAPETE TOWN (K R PETE), MANDYA - 571 426.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.S R KHAMROZ KHAN., AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI.K M PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V.C.O DATED 12/9/24, NOTICE TO R4 IS D/W)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PASSED ON 13/02/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.2598/023 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO PREPARE THE ADDITIONAL LIST IN TERMS OF RULE 8(2) OF THE KARNATAKA EDUCATION SERVICES (COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT) (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR) (RECRUITMENT) (SPECIAL) RULES, 2020 AND CETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶27

A disappointed job aspirant is grieving before the

¶28

Writ Court against the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 13.02.2024 whereby his Application

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶30

No.2598/2023 has been negatived. In the said Application,

¶31

he had sought for the quashment of Final Select List dated 03.03.2023 issued by the Respondent – Karnataka Examination Authority, wherein his name did not figure. Although the name of 4^th Respondent herein appeared under the quota reserved for the “persons of intellectual disability” petitioner found fault with it on the ground that the said candidate did not have that qualification.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently submits that the name of his client would have figured in the Additional List eventually the 4^th Respondent having exited from the fray, had such a List been prepared and his client’s candidature would have been considered for the post in question earmarked for persons of intellectual disability. He also seeks to falter the reasoning of the Tribunal that in the absence of a specific prayer to prepare the Additional List in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Karnataka Education Department (Collegiate Education department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professors) (Special) Rules, 2020, no direction

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶34

can be issued in that regard. He points out that the Tribunal acted too technically and that has prejudiced the cause of his client.

¶35

Learned AGA appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent – KEA (notice to Respondent No.4 having been dispensed with) resist the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been structured.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶38

4.1 It is not in dispute that the Final Select List was prepared and sent to the Government and that no Additional List was ever prepared, although the text of Rule 8(2) of 2020 Rules is mandatory. Petitioner had made a representation against the candidature of 4^th Respondent herein under the Category of intellectual

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶40

disablement and that this candidate eventually declined to join the employment, by withdrawing his candidature. It is the specific case of Petitioner that had an Additional List in terms of Rule 8(2) been prepared, the vacancy which otherwise would have been filled with by the 4^th Respondent would have figured in the Additional List and eventually Petitioner would have secured employment, he being immediately next below that candidate. There is force in this submission.

¶41

4.2 The reasoning of the Tribunal that in the absence of a specific prayer for the preparation of Additional List, no relief could be granted to a litigant, appears to be too technical in nature, to say the least. The Tribunals functioning under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 share writ jurisdiction in the light of L CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INIDA¹ . If both the sides to a legal battle have understood each other’s case, regardless of some lacuna in the pleadings of dominus litis , Writ Courts would mould the relief and grant 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶43

it without unnecessarily turning the litigant back to vage another legal battle, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. That having not happened in this case, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting our interference for setting the injustice at naught.

¶44

4.3 The vehement submission of learned AGA and the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents that even if an Additional List was prepared, it is not that Petitioner would have figured in that or he would have been appointed, should his name were to figure in the list, is difficult to completely agree with. One thing becomes clear from the records: The 4^th Respondent having exited from the fray, one vacancy remained unfilled and had there been an Additional List, the person at the top would have been offered with the same in the light of decision in THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. SOURABH² ; Petitioner, cannot be much disputed, was the candidate next in order of the exited

¶45

2 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶47

candidate and therefore, arguably his name would have

¶48

figured at the top of Additional List had one been prepared. This was the case argued before the Tribunal, although pleadings had not been in so many words taken up; in fact the other side had not much disputed the same, having understood it. Writ Courts and Writ Tribunals cannot turn away a worthy cause by quoting some jurisprudential theories; they are there for endeavoring to do justice. It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who had observed in DAVIS v. MILLS³ as under:

¶49

“ Constitutions are intended to preserve practical and substantial rights, not to maintain theories...”

¶50

In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second Respondent – Karnataka Examination Authority to prepare Additional Select List of the candidates for the posts of Assistant Professor, Kannada Subject under GM/PH/Autism, Intellectual Disability, Specific Learning Disability & Mental Illness Category and forward it to the Respondents 1 & 3 within six weeks; once that is done, the Respondents 1 &

¶51

3 194 U.S. 451 (1904)

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:45547-DB WP No. 9051 of 2024

¶54

3 shall consider the candidate at the top in the Additional List, for the vacancy that arose because of non-joining of 4^th Respondent to the post in question, within six weeks next following.

¶55

Both the Respondent – Karnataka Education Authority and the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 shall report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court within one week after accomplishing the mandated task as above, failing which they run the risk of being hauled up for the contempt of this Court.

¶56

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶57

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶58

Bsv

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri K K Chandrakanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K K Chandrakanth v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Smt Pooja P Nayak

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri. Sikandra Babu Martujasab Mulimani

Manjunath I Pujar S/O Shri Ishwarappa Pujar Vs Union of India

Sri Ravikumar G P Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka by Vs Ms. Latha H N

Smt. Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka